adobe.stock.photos

Subject: Why no cheaper low res images in Adobe Stock Photos?

I think Adobe Stock photos is a useful resource, but the prices bring tears to my eyes. I only need low res versions for use on the Web. It is like I am being asked to pay for an S-class Mercedes when I only need an A-class.

I suspect that many people may simply download the comp version and use it without paying, which means that the photographers actually lose money.

If can offer good quality low res images from $1, why not Adobe Stock Photos? I am not suggesting that Adobe Stock photos should be that cheap, but $5 to $10 would seem more reasonable for a low res version.

Given that Adobe CS2 services the needs of website designers as well as print designers, surely it would make sense to cater for this market by offering low res versions for use on the web?